Hi Jeremy, As for copying a tiddler in it's entirety as a JSON representation that might just be a new toolbar command. <<pasteTiddler>> could be a button that would previously have been found in SidebarOptions.
Cheers, Tobias. On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 23:30:43 UTC+2, Tobias Beer wrote: > > Hi everyone, especially Jeremy, > > Getting to watch the last third of Hangout #8 and the discussion around > sections and slices... > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0UZfd48Ixc > > Intrinsically, I agree that the tiddler is and should be promoted as the > smallest "manageable" chunk in a tw environment. > > In terms of refactoring chunks that grew bigger over time I immediately > got to think about a plugin I "recently" developed... > > http://namespace.tiddlyspace.com > > It may well provide the groundwork for solving these problems in terms of > not "inventing" entirely lose new content chunks but rather extracting > things that get too complex into chunks under the same namespace, e.g. > turning "foo##bar" into a tiddler called "foo:bar" whereas the latter is a > fully qualified tiddler title. Yet, by virtue of a namespace separator > (namely ":"), it provides an intrininsic connection back to the outer > element, e.g. [[foo]]. Obviously, the relevance in terms of sequence may > only be established within the body of outer tiddler. > > So, in terms of tw classic lingo, <<tiddler "##bar">> would perhaps not > only fetch an actual (hidden) section of a tiddler but also something under > the same namespace (given a global namespace separator), e.g. a tiddler > named "foo:bar" and then pulling that. > > Did that come accross? > > I think this may solve a major problem with section vs. tiddler and > providing a fundamental compatibility of the two in terms of any subsequent > refactoring or rather disection. > > ~ > > Also, I don't think we should go for slices anymore. Instead, fields are > the way to go along with a way to make a given field (and value) visible or > not, e.g. by promoting it to being a "semantic field". > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/MJFg7qGxzzI/JCyZ2JTAiiYJ > > In-tiddler-slices are confusing at best because they literally are too > arbitrary. It's nice that they work in tw2 but the reality is that there > are way too many slices created in vain. > > So, what does stand in the way of "just using" fields? Well, obviously > that to just copy and paste a tiddler body with all slices being contained > therein doesn't suffice. So, if we want to discard slices we definetely > *need* to be able to copy a tiddler as its JSON representation and paste it > into some sort of tiddler-pastebin which creates an actual tiddler out of a > pasted JSON representation. In other words, copying a tiddler is more than > just copying its body! The core should provide means to represent and thus > copy-paste a tiddler as it is stored by tw5 itself. > > ~ > > As for sections... if those are being kept in terms of functional > accessibility of a classic tw, I believe it should be implemented such that > one can either get the slim or fat version of a section... > > ; slim > : as is, all until the next heading or end > > ; fat > : everything until the next heading of the __same level__ or end > > Cheers, Tobias. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
